advantageconsumer.com
Consumer Protection Council, Rourkela
  about us

informationmanagementservices
Directions for providing uninterrupted power supply cannot be sustained

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi

First Appeal no. 355 of 1995
(From the order dated 17.2.1995 in Compt. No. 126/92 of the State Commission, Kerala)

Kerala State Electricity Board               -- Appellant 
            Vs.
Raveendran                                         -- Respondent

Before: Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.P.Wadhwa, Presiden, Mr. B.K.Taimni, Member, Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.S.Gupta, Member.

ORDER

JUSTICE D.P.WADHWA, J.(PRESIDENT).

     Opposite Party is now the appellant before us.

     It was case of the complainant - respondent that he was running a plastic factory. When on account of fall in the voltage in the electricity supply by the appellant, machines were damaged and production suffered. Alleging deficiency in service, complainant filed the complaint. Complainant, it appears, had taken a loan for running this industry from the Kerala Financial Corporation (KFC). In the complaint, he claimed compensation of Rs.3,19,693/- comprising (1) Rs.1,29,693/- towards interest paid to the KFC; (2) Rs.26,000/- towards the interest to be paid to Canara Bank; (3) Rs.42,000/- towards the interest on capital invested by him; (4) Rs. 72,000/- towards the business loss; and (5) Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony. State commission, however, gave hime the following reliefs:

     "In the result the complaint is allowed in part. The opposite parties are directed:

(a) to provide uninterrupted supply of sufficient quantity of electrical energy to consumer No.6676 for the functioning of the factory, (b) to pay Rs.25,000/- towards compensation to complainant for the business loss suffered,

(c) to pay Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony suffered by the complaiant,

(d) to pay Rs.2,000/- towards cost to the complainant."

     Aggrieved KSEB has come up with an appeal. We do not think direction issued by the State Commission for providing uninterrupted supply of electrical energy could be sustained keeping in view the terms of supply of electricity to the complainant. No evidence was given for the alleged business loss suffered by the complainant. We, therefore, modify the impugned order of the State Commission as under:

     "We award Rs.10,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and suffereings for the loss to the complainant. Rs.2,000/- as cost as awarded by the State Commission in the Appeal".

     In the circumstances of the case, we award a sum of Rs.2,000/- as costs to the respondent/complainant. Thus in all, complainant could be entitled to Rs.14,000/-. With this modification, appeal is disposed of. 



                                                                                              Top
 

feedback query
Consumer Protection Council, Rourkela